VIA Rail

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by technomad

it's definitely not as easy a viaducting over the CP tracks to tower centre, but most of a decent rail ROW to central Edmonton still exists.
the last couple of miles will be pricey tho... tunnel, bridge or maybe even both?

I'm wondering if the Calgary terminus would be in the East Village? There's a lot of empty land along the CP tracks across from Fort Calgary (with the exception of Stampede as that's where the midway trucks and trailers are parked). The Green Line will have a station at 4 Ave SE and it's only four blocks from the Tower Centre.

I thought the CP ROW exists to use the High Level Bridge? It technically wouldn't be "High Speed" in that area.

[dmuzika]

I know this thread is more geared towards passenger rail, but I had a freight question.

In light of the tragic Lytton wildfire, It exposed a major bottleneck in rail transport to Vancouver. Both CN and CP use the the Thompson & Fraser Canyons between Kamloops and the Lower Mainland, and I understand they agreed to share tracks, with westbound traffic using the CN tracks and eastbound traffic using the CP tracks.

In light of Vancouver being Canada's largest Pacific port and 3rd largest metropolitan area, I'm wondering if it's at all possible to construct another rail corridor that could be used if the Fraser Canyon was temporally closed? Is there a link to the CN line that runs from North Vancouver-Squamish-Prince George? The Kettle Valley Railway went from Hope to Kelowna and the West Kootenays, but it's no longer useable (the Coquihalla Hwy follows a portion of it). Granted topography makes it very difficult.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

I thought the CP ROW exists to use the High Level Bridge? It technically wouldn't be "High Speed" in that area.

The bridge isn't strong enough for mainline trains.

You could terminate a line at a station south of the river, but that would be trash. It would obviously be a short term solution, which being the case would mean either it's a waste of money since it will be replaced, or the project is deemed likely to fail and it isn't worth it to spend money on permanent infrastructure.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

I'm wondering if the Calgary terminus would be in the East Village? There's a lot of empty land along the CP tracks across from Fort Calgary (with the exception of Stampede as that's where the midway trucks and trailers are parked). The Green Line will have a station at 4 Ave SE and it's only four blocks from the Tower Centre.

I thought the CP ROW exists to use the High Level Bridge? It technically wouldn't be "High Speed" in that area.

I believe the province has some of the east village land set aside for the station, but I think there's a good argument to made to go the last stretch to the old centre st station
while there's plenty of room in nose creek to run surface tracks, once HSR crosses the river it will either have to go above or below.
above makes it easy to follow the CP ROW all the way to center where it would be closer to the two existing LRT lines. also provides pretext to partly nuke the parking bunker behind and give that block a redo.

the high level ROW is still there, currently used by the streetcar
but I believe CoE released a report stating that the bridge was too degraded to take the weight of HSR or even a full LRT trainset, so the steel portions at least would have to be replaced. pricey, but suppose that'll have to be done someday anyways...
I do think the HSR ROW has to be buried through strathcona though, and it would be great if the city decided to bury the gateway drive connection while they're at it and get rid of the ridiculous U-turn into the river valley. ideally this would then extend to a freeway grade gateway drive south of whyte, parallel to the HSR route.
IMO this would provide the best 'first impression' ROW for the city.

at one point the stelmach gov had floated a 'reacharound route' that would take travelers on a scenic journey east through refinery row, before looping back around to follow the fort rd route to the site of the new museum.
utter soviet-tier insanity

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by technomad

I believe the province has some of the east village land set aside for the station, but I think there's a good argument to made to go the last stretch to the old centre st station
while there's plenty of room in nose creek to run surface tracks, once HSR crosses the river it will either have to go above or below.
above makes it easy to follow the CP ROW all the way to center where it would be closer to the two existing LRT lines. also provides pretext to partly nuke the parking bunker behind and give that block a redo.

the high level ROW is still there, currently used by the streetcar
but I believe CoE released a report stating that the bridge was too degraded to take the weight of HSR or even a full LRT trainset, so the steel portions at least would have to be replaced. pricey, but suppose that'll have to be done someday anyways...
I do think the HSR ROW has to be buried through strathcona though, and it would be great if the city decided to bury the gateway drive connection while they're at it and get rid of the ridiculous U-turn into the river valley. ideally this would then extend to a freeway grade gateway drive south of whyte, parallel to the HSR route.
IMO this would provide the best 'first impression' ROW for the city.

at one point the stelmach gov had floated a 'reacharound route' that would take travelers on a scenic journey east through refinery row, before looping back around to follow the fort rd route to the site of the new museum.
utter soviet-tier insanity

But roads resembling an MDMA affected spider's web are Edmonton's thing! Without that, what is left?

[technomad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But roads resembling an MDMA affected spider's web are Edmonton's thing! Without that, what is left?

well we still have a LRT network that seems to have been designed by the MDMA addled...

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

I know this thread is more geared towards passenger rail, but I had a freight question.

In light of the tragic Lytton wildfire, It exposed a major bottleneck in rail transport to Vancouver. Both CN and CP use the the Thompson & Fraser Canyons between Kamloops and the Lower Mainland, and I understand they agreed to share tracks, with westbound traffic using the CN tracks and eastbound traffic using the CP tracks.

In light of Vancouver being Canada's largest Pacific port and 3rd largest metropolitan area, I'm wondering if it's at all possible to construct another rail corridor that could be used if the Fraser Canyon was temporally closed? Is there a link to the CN line that runs from North Vancouver-Squamish-Prince George? The Kettle Valley Railway went from Hope to Kelowna and the West Kootenays, but it's no longer useable (the Coquihalla Hwy follows a portion of it). Granted topography makes it very difficult.

The tracks to Prince George link with the CN line from Prince Rupert to Edmonton, so there's that.

The other alternative route would be to go through the United States, but BNSF might not like that idea.

I've had similar thoughts though, the large number of railway abandonments over the past 35 years across Canada has removed a lot of redundancy out of the network. A good example of this in Ontario was the loss of the OVR (former CP route) between Smiths Falls and Mattawa; now all CP traffic between Montreal and Western Canada must pass through Toronto.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The tracks to Prince George link with the CN line from Prince Rupert to Edmonton, so there's that.

The other alternative route would be to go through the United States, but BNSF might not like that idea.

I've had similar thoughts though, the large number of railway abandonments over the past 35 years across Canada has removed a lot of redundancy out of the network. A good example of this in Ontario was the loss of the OVR (former CP route) between Smiths Falls and Mattawa; now all CP traffic between Montreal and Western Canada must pass through Toronto.

If I am not mistaken, I believe there was talk at one time about building a connection between CN Ashcroft and the BCR. I don't think the proposal got very far.

[Truenorth00]

From the mayor of Kingston:
• Video Link

[ssiguy]

IF the Cal/Edm line goes ahead, VIA and Ottawa are going to revise their plans to increase the speed and get rid of more grade separations.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't know if it has to be by the numbers HSR (~250km/h), although it probably does IMO. But a rail project between Calgary and Edmonton has to be of decent quality from the start for the reason I have stated a million times. Unless it is faster than, at a minimum, a bus, and ideally faster than a car or plane, and of a reasonable frequency, then there is no reason for anyone to use it as there are better options. And if no one uses it, then it's a waste of money. There is no incrementalism possible here.

To be decent quality, we're talking a journey time of <2.5 hours. That's about 120km/h. But to achieve that with good reliability you are going to need a dedicated ROW, and you're going to have to build a new and expensive station in Edmonton regardless. Since this new build line goes across prairie nothingness, it will be easy to make it go fast, and the faster you go the more passengers you get. That's why the studies always end up saying HSR beats slower rail.

That is not HSR. HSR is over200 km/hr. So, either ou have no idea what Albertans want, or you don';t know the terminology.

If there is space to double track the existing line, then that likely would give what is needed. Downtown Edmonton is the issue. What I would do is extend the ETS to the existing Via station, as well as extend it to other places that the train could stop around Edmonton. Once the line is running, announce and construct an extension through downtown to the existing Via station. Then ensure there are at least 3+ platforms including a fairly lengthy one. Then reroute the Calgary train to the downtown station. Also, reroute the Canadian to the Downtown station. If possible, extend the Jasper train to there as well. The governments are not going to do all of that in one go. So, the initial thing could simply be a bunch of trains running on existing CP ROW.

Originally Posted by milomilo

There is no empty railway to buy and use though between Calgary and Edmonton. You could maybe add tracks to CP's line, but it would probably be a wiser investment to take $5B of cash and light it on fire.

And there really is no easy option for a station in Edmonton that doesn't suck.

What is wrong with it sucking at the beginning? I know, you feel AB deserves the best. What if HSR opened and it was poorly used? Then Albertans would complain about wasting taxpayer dollars. A better optic might be to put in something that is traveling track speed on existing tracks, then improving it. HFR is proving that the public is gullible. So, dupe them into thinking they are getting something, then dupe them again into thinking it is being vastly improved. That will win a few seats for the left.

Originally Posted by technomad

it's definitely not as easy a viaducting over the CP tracks to tower centre, but most of a decent rail ROW to central Edmonton still exists.
the last couple of miles will be pricey tho... tunnel, bridge or maybe even both?

Both would make sense. Even better is the optics of good paying jobs for oil workers as the oil sands money starts to dry up.

Originally Posted by dmuzika

I know this thread is more geared towards passenger rail, but I had a freight question.

In light of the tragic Lytton wildfire, It exposed a major bottleneck in rail transport to Vancouver. Both CN and CP use the the Thompson & Fraser Canyons between Kamloops and the Lower Mainland, and I understand they agreed to share tracks, with westbound traffic using the CN tracks and eastbound traffic using the CP tracks.

In light of Vancouver being Canada's largest Pacific port and 3rd largest metropolitan area, I'm wondering if it's at all possible to construct another rail corridor that could be used if the Fraser Canyon was temporally closed? Is there a link to the CN line that runs from North Vancouver-Squamish-Prince George? The Kettle Valley Railway went from Hope to Kelowna and the West Kootenays, but it's no longer useable (the Coquihalla Hwy follows a portion of it). Granted topography makes it very difficult.

You man how the blockades in Eastern ON showed the silliness of pulling up the tracks through the Ottawa Valley? The more I jump on the Via expansion bandwagon, the more I see what has happened to Canada's rail network.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The bridge isn't strong enough for mainline trains.

You could terminate a line at a station south of the river, but that would be trash. It would obviously be a short term solution, which being the case would mean either it's a waste of money since it will be replaced, or the project is deemed likely to fail and it isn't worth it to spend money on permanent infrastructure.

"Hey look, the liberals are spending money where they don't have any seats."

Originally Posted by ssiguy

IF the Cal/Edm line goes ahead, VIA and Ottawa are going to revise their plans to increase the speed and get rid of more grade separations.

That would make sense.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is not HSR. HSR is over200 km/hr. So, either ou have no idea what Albertans want, or you don';t know the terminology.

Yes it is. If you are going to correct someone, make sure you get your facts right.

The definition of High Speed Rail

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If there is space to double track the existing line, then that likely would give what is needed. Downtown Edmonton is the issue. What I would do is extend the ETS to the existing Via station, as well as extend it to other places that the train could stop around Edmonton. Once the line is running, announce and construct an extension through downtown to the existing Via station. Then ensure there are at least 3+ platforms including a fairly lengthy one. Then reroute the Calgary train to the downtown station. Also, reroute the Canadian to the Downtown station. If possible, extend the Jasper train to there as well. The governments are not going to do all of that in one go. So, the initial thing could simply be a bunch of trains running on existing CP ROW.

Rather than spend all that money on a suboptimal solution, why not just build the station in a good place to begin with?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is wrong with it sucking at the beginning?

Because we would have wasted money if people do not use the infrastructure.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know, you feel AB deserves the best. What if HSR opened and it was poorly used?

That's an excellent question - if HSR opened and it was poorly used, then it was a bad project and we shouldn't have built it. That's why we must only build something if it's worth building.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then Albertans would complain about wasting taxpayer dollars. A better optic might be to put in something that is traveling track speed on existing tracks, then improving it. HFR is proving that the public is gullible. So, dupe them into thinking they are getting something, then dupe them again into thinking it is being vastly improved. That will win a few seats for the left.

I have no interest in continuing this moronic discussion on what the Liberals should do to buy seats. I don't want infrastructure built to dupe us into voting for someone, I want it because it is useful.

I've explained to you over and over again why your incremental approach doesn't make sense. I'll just copy and paste what I said last time. A rail project between Calgary and Edmonton has to be of decent quality from the start. Unless it is faster than, at a minimum, a bus, and ideally faster than a car or plane, and of a reasonable frequency, then there is no reason for anyone to use it as there are better options. And if no one uses it, then it's a waste of money.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes it is. If you are going to correct someone, make sure you get your facts right.

The definition of High Speed Rail

From our link:
For such speeds above 200 km/h, the infrastructure can be categorized in “High-Speed” if the system in operations, complies with:

You stated 120km/hr.

So, it is you who needs to learn how to read.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Rather than spend all that money on a suboptimal solution, why not just build the station in a good place to begin with?

Rather than build staged LRT expansions, why not build the whole system out all in one go? Same reason.

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's an excellent question - if HSR opened and it was poorly used, then it was a bad project and we shouldn't have built it. That's why we must only build something if it's worth building.

That is why I suggest a phased approach.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I have no interest in continuing this moronic discussion on what the Liberals should do to buy seats. I don't want infrastructure built to dupe us into voting for someone, I want it because it is useful.

I've explained to you over and over again why your incremental approach doesn't make sense. I'll just copy and paste what I said last time. A rail project between Calgary and Edmonton has to be of decent quality from the start. Unless it is faster than, at a minimum, a bus, and ideally faster than a car or plane, and of a reasonable frequency, then there is no reason for anyone to use it as there are better options. And if no one uses it, then it's a waste of money.

It is no different than the Conservatives doing lots of stuff in vote rick Ontario.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

IF the Cal/Edm line goes ahead, VIA and Ottawa are going to revise their plans to increase the speed and get rid of more grade separations.

If a government funded study couldn't find a business case for CalEd HSR at $5 billion, what are the chances, a private sector endeavour would close the business case at $9 billion?

That they signed an MOU with Hyperloop dudes should tell you exactly how serious Alberta's government is ....

VIA HFR, for all its flaws, at least has some actual commitments. Not just MOUs behind it. With a Minister who has even committed to putting out an RFP in the Fall, and the full support of cabinet.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is not HSR. HSR is over200 km/hr.

Top speed =\= Average speed.

Milomilo is referring to average speed. And that difference is very relevant. As a point of reference the original TGV line (LGV Sud Est) between Paris and Lyon still does not average 200 kph (it's close at 197 kph) and this with a nominal speed of 300 kph.

And CalEd would face substantial pressures to add stops at both airports, along with Red Deer and Airdrie as a minimum. Those stops would add time and reduce average speeds on a rather average distance HSR line substantially. If average speeds are roughly two thirds of top speeds, CalEd would need at least 200 kph HSR to get downtown to downtown under 2.5 hrs. Optimistically, this would be a $5 billions HFR type system.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If a government funded study couldn't find a business case for CalEd HSR at $5 billion, what are the chances, a private sector endeavour would close the business case at $9 billion?

That they signed an MOU with Hyperloop dudes should tell you exactly how serious Alberta's divergent is ....

VIA HFR, for all its flaws, at least has some actual commitments. But just MOUs behind it. With a Minister who has even committed to putting out an RFP in the Fall.

The signing on for hyperloop and other things tells me that either the provincial government is stupid or gullible, or desperate. None of those are good.
They are stupid to think it is worth the money.
The are gullible to think the technology is that superior.
They are desperate for non oil sands jobs.

Or, they know something none of us have any clue about.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The signing on for hyperloop and other things tells me that either the provincial government is stupid or gullible, or desperate. None of those are good.
They are stupid to think it is worth the money.
The are gullible to think the technology is that superior.
They are desperate for non oil sands jobs.

Or, they know something none of us have any clue about.

Or they know that the average voter isn't a railfan and doesn't give a shit and will be just fine with a government pretending to care.

Even better if a bunch of dupes can keep talking about how the private sector is going to build bullet trains in Alberta, while all that those governments bureaucrats in Ottawa are building is slow trains between Toronto and Quebec City. That is good for drumming up a few votes in Alberta while building exactly nothing. The federal Conservative transport critic is also deploying this playbook, talking about "alternative technologies".

It's such an effective playbook to use, as long as finite gullible people can be convinced that the problem is VIA, and not governments who under-resource VIA. And better yet, if they get elected and slash VIA, the worse services only help further their narrative.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Top speed =\= Average speed.

Milomilo is referring to average speed. And that difference is very relevant. As a point of reference the original TGV line (LGV Sud Est) between Paris and Lyon still does not average 200 kph (it's close at 197 kph) and this with a nominal speed of 300 kph.

And CalEd would face substantial pressures to add stops at both airports, along with Red Deer and Airdrie as a minimum. Those stops would add time and reduce average speeds on a rather average distance HSR line substantially. If average speeds are roughly two thirds of top speeds, CalEd would need at least 200 kph HSR to get downtown to downtown under 2.5 hrs. Optimistically, this would be a $5 billions HFR type system.

I know the difference between the 2, but neither of us stated which one we were referring to. The question is what speed he was referring to, as average speed to do it in 2.5 hours isn't over 200 km/hr.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Or they know that the average voter isn't a railfan and doesn't give a shit and will be just fine with a government pretending to care.

Even better if a bunch of dupes can keep talking about how the private sector is going to build bullet trains in Alberta, while all that those governments bureaucrats in Ottawa are building is slow trains between Toronto and Quebec City. That is good for drumming up a few votes in Alberta while building exactly nothing. The federal Conservative transport critic is also deploying this playbook, talking about "alternative technologies".

It's such an effective playbook to use, as long as finite gullible people can be convinced that the problem is VIA, and not governments who under-resource VIA. And better yet, if they get elected and slash VIA, the worse services only help further their narrative.

Completely agree with your entire post.

[ssiguy]

London Mayor Ed Holder has held a post-HFR interview stating that London wants HFR with 3 requirements.......higher speeds, more reliability, and higher frequencies. He stated he has already talked with VIA {IOW Ottawa} and says that a SWO rail announcement which means within the month at most. Needless to say the mayors of London & Windsor gave them an earful.